Search

Objectives: People who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk for numerous negative health outcomes. Subcutaneous injections (aka skin popping) can result in greater risk of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), but less is known about PWID who choose this route of administration. This study compares subcutaneous injectors to intravenous injectors, characterizes those who inject subcutaneously, and examines whether subcutaneous injection is associated with SSTIs in the past year. Methods: A cohort of hospitalized PWID (n = 252) were interviewed regarding injection-related behaviors, history of SSTI, and knowledge of subcutaneous injection risk. We examined differences between those who do and do not inject subcutaneously and used a negative binomial regression model to estimate adjusted odds associating subcutaneous injection and SSTI. Results: Participants averaged 38 years, with 58.3% male, 59.5% White, 20.6% Black, and 15.9% Latinx. PWID who performed subcutaneous injection were not demographically different from other PWID; however, the mean rate of past year SSTIs was higher for persons injecting subcutaneously than for those who did not (1.98 vs 0.96, P < 0.001). Persons injecting subcutaneously did not differ from those who injected intravenously in terms of their knowledge of subcutaneous injection risk (P = 0.112) and knowledge score was not associated with SSTIs (P = 0.457). Conclusions: PWID who perform subcutaneous injections are demographically similar to other PWID but had higher rates of past year SSTIs. Knowledge of subcutaneous injection risk was not associated with SSTI risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction People who inject drugs (PWID) are a key population at increased risk of HIV transmission through unsafe drug injection practices with HIV-contaminated needles. In the Russian Federation (Russia), injection [...], Introduction: Police violence against people who inject drugs (PWID) is common in Russia and associated with HIV risk behaviours. Sexual violence from police against women who use drugs has been reported anecdotally in Russia. This mixedmethods study aimed to evaluate sexual violence from police against women who inject drugs via quantitative assessment of its prevalence and HIV risk correlates, and through qualitative interviews with police, substance users and their providers in St. Petersburg, Russia. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses with HIV-positive women who inject drugs (N = 228) assessed the associations between sexual violence from police (i.e. having been forced to have sex with a police officer) and the following behaviours: current drug use, needle sharing and injection frequency using multiple regression models. We also conducted in-depth interviews with 23 key informants, including PWID, police, civil society organization workers, and other stakeholders, to explore qualitatively the phenomenon of sexual violence from police in Russia and strategies to address it. We analyzed qualitative data using content analysis. Results: Approximately one in four women in our quantitative study (24.1%; 95% CI, 18.6%, 29.7%) reported sexual violence perpetrated by police. Affected women reported more transactional sex for drugs or money than those who were not; however, the majority of those reporting sexual violence from police were not involved in these forms of transactional sex. Sexual violence from police was not significantly associated with current drug use or needle sharing but with more frequent drug injections (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.04, 1.95). Qualitative data suggested that sexual violence and coercion by police appear to be entrenched as a norm and are perceived insurmountable because of the seemingly absolute power of police. They systematically add to the risk environment of women who use drugs in Russia. Conclusions: Sexual violence from police was common in this cohort of Russian HIV-positive women who inject drugs. Our analyses found more frequent injection drug use among those affected, suggesting that the phenomenon represents an underappreciated human rights and public health problem. Addressing sexual violence from police against women in Russia will require addressing structural factors, raising social awareness and instituting police trainings that protect vulnerable women from violence and prevent HIV transmission. Keywords: sexual violence; gender-based violence; human rights; police involvement; People living with HIV/AIDS (PLHA); injection drug use; key populations; Russian Federation.

Background Chronic pain is prevalent among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH); managing pain with chronic opioid therapy (COT) is common. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) providers often diverge from prescribing guidelines. Methods This 2-arm, unblinded, cluster-randomized clinical trial assessed whether the Targeting Effective Analgesia in Clinics for HIV (TEACH) intervention improves guideline-concordant care compared to usual care for PLWH on COT. The trial was implemented from 2015 to 2018 with 12-month follow-up at safety-net hospital–based HIV clinics in Boston and Atlanta. We enrolled 41 providers and their 187 patients on COT. Prescribers were randomized 1:1 to either a 12-month intervention consisting of a nurse care manager with an interactive electronic registry, opioid education, academic detailing, and access to addiction specialists or a control condition consisting of usual care. Two primary outcomes were assessed through electronic medical records: ≥2 urine drug tests and any early COT refills by 12 months. Other outcomes included possible adverse consequences. Results At 12 months, the TEACH intervention arm had higher odds of ≥2 urine drug tests than the usual care arm (71% vs 20%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 13.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.85–30.60]; P <.0001). We did not detect a statistically significant difference in early refills (22% vs 30%; AOR, 0.55 [95% CI,.26–1.15]; P =.11), pain severity (6.30 vs 5.76; adjusted mean difference, 0.10 [95% CI, −1.56 to 1.75]; P =.91), or HIV viral load suppression (86.9% vs 82.1%; AOR, 1.21 [95% CI,.47–3.09]; P =.69). Conclusions TEACH is a promising intervention to improve adherence to COT guidelines without evident adverse consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Little is known about prevalence and treatment of OUD among youth engaged in primary care (PC). Medications are the recommended treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) for adolescents and young adults (youth). This study describes the prevalence of OUD, the prevalence of medication treatment for OUD, and patient characteristics associated with OUD treatment among youth engaged in PC. Methods: This cross-sectional study includes youth aged 16–25 years engaged in PC. Eligible patients had ≥ 1 PC visit during fiscal years (FY) 2014–2016 in one of 6 health systems across 6 states. Data from electronic health records and insurance claims were used to identify OUD diagnoses, office-based OUD medication treatment, and patient demographic and clinical characteristics in the FY of the first PC visit during the study period. Descriptive analyses were conducted in all youth, and stratified by age (16–17, 18–21, 22–25 years). Results: Among 303,262 eligible youth, 2131 (0.7%) had a documented OUD diagnosis. The prevalence of OUD increased by ascending age groups. About half of youth with OUD had documented depression or anxiety and one third had co-occurring substance use disorders. Receipt of medication for OUD was lowest among youth 16–17 years old (14%) and highest among those aged 22–25 (39%). Conclusions: In this study of youth engaged in 6 health systems across 6 states, there was low receipt of medication treatment, and high prevalence of other substance use disorders and mental health disorders. These findings indicate an urgent need to increase medication treatment for OUD and to integrate treatment for other substance use and mental health disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is emerging as an important form of care in the United States. We sought to measure the prevalence of selected CAM use among veterans attending oncology and chronic pain clinics and to describe the characteristics of CAM use in this population. Methods The self-administered, mail-in survey included questions on demographics, health beliefs, medical problems and 6 common CAM treatments (herbs, dietary supplements, chiropractic care, massage therapy, acupuncture and homeopathy) use. We used the chi-square test to examine bivariate associations between our predictor variables and CAM use. Results Seventy-two patients (27.3%) reported CAM use within the past 12 months. CAM use was associated with more education (p = 0.02), higher income (p = 0.006), non-VA insurance (p = 0.003), additional care outside the VA (p = 0.01) and the belief that lifestyle contributes to illness (p = 0.015). The diagnosis of chronic pain versus cancer was not associated with differential CAM use (p = 0.15). Seventy-six percent of CAM non-users reported that they would use it if offered at the VA. Conclusion Use of 6 common CAM treatments among these veterans is lower than among the general population, but still substantial. A large majority of veterans reported interest in using CAM modalities if they were offered at the VA. A national assessment of veteran interest in CAM may assist VA leaders to respond to patients' needs.

Abstract Background Despite the importance of identifying co-occurring psychiatric disorders in substance abuse treatment programs, there are few appropriate and validated instruments available to substance abuse treatment staff to conduct brief screen for these conditions. This paper describes the development, implementation and validation of a brief screening instrument for mental health diagnoses and trauma among a diverse sample of Black, Hispanic and White women in substance abuse treatment. With input from clinicians and consumers, we adapted longer existing validated instruments into a 14 question screen covering demographics, mental health symptoms and physical and sexual violence exposure. All women entering treatment (methadone, residential and out-patient) at five treatment sites were screened at intake (N = 374). Results Eighty nine percent reported a history of interpersonal violence, and 70% reported a history of sexual assault. Eighty-eight percent reported mental health symptoms in the last 30 days. The screening questions administered to 88 female clients were validated against in-depth psychiatric diagnostic assessments by trained mental health clinicians. We estimated measures of predictive validity, including sensitivity, specificity and predictive values positive and negative. Screening items were examined multiple ways to assess utility. The screen is a useful and valid proxy for PTSD but not for other mental illness. Conclusion Substance abuse treatment programs should incorporate violence exposure questions into clinical use as a matter of policy. More work is needed to develop brief screening tools measures for front-line treatment staff to accurately assess other mental health needs of women entering substance abuse treatment

Background: Pain and opioid management are core ambulatory palliative care skills. Existing literature on how to manage opioid misuse/use disorder excludes patients found in palliative care settings, such as individuals with serious illness or those at the end of life. Objectives: We conducted an exploratory study to: (1) Identify the challenges palliative care clinicians face when prescribing opioids in ambulatory settings and (2) explore factors that affect opioid decision-making. Methods: We recruited palliative care clinicians who prescribe opioids in ambulatory settings, which included open-ended questions and was conducted online. Results were analyzed qualitatively using a content analysis-based approach. Results: Eighty-three palliative care clinicians (mostly MDs/DOs) participated. Challenges faced when prescribing opioids included clinician differences in approach to care (eg, transitioning from another clinician with more permissive opioid prescribing), medication access (eg, inadequate pharmacy supply), resource constraints (eg, access to mental health and addiction expertise), managing problems outside the typical palliative care scope (eg addiction). Participants also discussed factors that influenced their opioid prescribing decisions, such as opioid-related harms and risks that they need to weigh; they also spoke about the necessity of considering other factors like the patient's environment, disease, treatment, and prognosis. Conclusion: This study highlights the challenge of opioid management in patients with serious illness, particularly when misuse or substance use disorder is present, and suggests areas for future research focus. Our next step will be to establish consensus on approaches to opioid prescribing decision-making and policy in seriously ill patients presenting to ambulatory palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Marijuana use is common among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain, but there is a lack of evidence to guide clinicians' response. Objective To generate expert consensus about responding to marijuana use among patients on LTOT. Design Analysis from an online Delphi study. Setting/Subjects Clinician experts in pain and opioid management across the United States. Methods Participants generated management strategies in response to marijuana use without distinction between medical and nonmedical use, then rated the importance of each management strategy from 1 (not at all important) to 9 (extremely important). A priori rules for consensus were established, and disagreement was explored using cases. Thematic analysis of free-text responses examined factors that influenced participants' decision-making. Results Of 42 participants, 64% were internal medicine physicians. There was consensus that it is not important to taper opioids as an initial response to marijuana use. There was disagreement about the importance of tapering opioids if there is a pattern of repeated marijuana use without clinical suspicion for a cannabis use disorder (CUD) and consensus that tapering is of uncertain importance if there is suspicion for CUD. Three themes influenced experts' perceptions of the importance of tapering: 1) benefits and harms of marijuana for the individual patient, 2) a spectrum of belief about the overall riskiness of marijuana use, and 3) variable state laws or practice policies. Conclusions Experts disagree and are uncertain about the importance of opioid tapering for patients with marijuana use. Experts were influenced by patient factors, provider beliefs, and marijuana policy, highlighting the need for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To identify reasons for opioid discontinuation and post-discontinuation outcomes among patients in the Transforming Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care (TOPCARE) study. Design In TOPCARE, an intervention to improve adherence to opioid prescribing guidelines, randomized intervention primary care providers (PCPs) received nurse care manager support, an electronic registry, academic detailing, and electronic tools, and control PCPs received electronic tools only. Setting Four Boston safety net primary care practices. Subjects Patients in both TOPCARE study arms who discontinued opioid therapy during the trial. Methods Through chart review, we examined the reason for discontinuation and post-discontinuation outcomes: one or more PCP visits, one or more pain-related emergency department (ED) visits, evidence of opioid use disorder (OUD), and referral for OUD treatment. Results Opioid discontinuations occurred in 83/586 (14.2%) intervention and 42/399 (10.5%) control patients (P  = 0.09). Among patients who discontinued opioids, 81 (65%) discontinued for misuse, with no difference by group (P  = 0.38). Aberrancy in monitoring (e.g. discordant urine drug test results) was the most common type of misuse prompting discontinuation (occurring in (51/83 [61%] of intervention patients vs 19/42 [45%, P  = 0.08] of control patients). Intervention patients who discontinued opioids had less PCP follow-up (65% vs 88%, P  < 0.01) compared with control patients. We found no differences between groups for pain-related ED visits, evidence of OUD, or OUD treatment referral following discontinuation. Conclusions The decreased follow-up among TOPCARE intervention patients who discontinued opioids highlights the need to understand unintended consequences of involuntary opioid discontinuations resulting from interventions to reduce opioid risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Description of recruitment methods and lessons learned in a randomized controlled trial of underserved patients using an integrative medical group visits intervention.Methods: Comparison of the demographic characteristics of participants screened and consented to the study as well as description of recruitment methods used.Outcome Measures: This paper examines the characteristics of patients who were eligible compared to those who were not, characteristics of patients at the different sites, and patient characteristics over time (by comparing various cohorts) based on our experiences recruiting underserved patients.Results: We screened 338 patients, with 205 (60.6%) meeting eligibility criteria and 159 patients randomized and consented. 133 patients were found ineligible, with the most common reasons being low depression scores (n = 20), manic symptoms (n = 20), and psychotic symptoms (n = 19), and alcohol use (n = 15). We found demographic differences in patients recruited by different methods and at different sites- patients referred by provider letter were older than those referred by self-referral or provider referral (mean age/SD vs. mean age/SD, p = 0.0001). For site-specific differences, patients at DH were older (53 SD = 12.3) than those at the Boston Medical Center (49 SD = 11.3) and CSHC (p = 0.048) in pair-wise comparisons. Patients at DH were also more likely to be white (25%) as compared to BMC (18%) and DH (7%), while those at CSHC were more likely to be black (70%) (p = 0.008). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]